Armor makes you harder to hit for sure. It blocks the attack and protects your soft, smooth skin.

Erm, I do see the point you're trying to make. But in terms of imagining what happens it's often important to know the difference between being struck, even on the armor, and being missed. Blunt weapons don't have to touch your skin to kill you - imagine an armored knight standing with his back to a precipice and is attacked by an ogre with a big scary hammer. The knight probably has to parry or dodge to survive.

Of course, no RPG is going to handle every situation perfectly, and pointing out this one thing that D&D's rule system does badly doesn't by itself prove that it's awful. My main complaint about D&D's system is really that it's massive and complex, but still leaves holes like these which are pretty well dealt with by simpler systems. Even Kobolds Ate My Baby, an RPG contained in a 30 page black & white pamphlet, has armor reduce damage you take rather than making you hard to hit! (Incidently I didn't even remember that until just now; I was going to use KAMB to demonstrate that simple systems often take shortcuts with plausibility, but apparently not that shortcut!)

When TZH - the Mighty and Awesome RPG finally comes out, I think it will be important to know whether an attack knocks a person back (possibly into a horde of crawlers) or actually breaks skin.

You know, I'm not certain because I don't have my DM guide right by my side, but I'm pretty sure that within the first few pages it says "These rules are just a guideline." So really if you had a problem with a particular rule you could modify them to suit your needs. Aside from that, DnD is more about the people you play with and less about the actual rules and all the other crap.

I've got a game with 5 rogues stuck in my head now. Kind of wish my schedule hadn't changed at work so I could steal this idea and possibly play/run one.

Personally, I'd rather see a group of 5 barbarians. Then again, I almost always play a barbarian, or a barbarian-esq char so I'm a bit biased. Even my wizard has a fairly barbarian-esq personality. "Why would we try to be diplomatic with them, when I can burn them alive? Or electrocute them. Or turn them to stone. Or paralyze them. Or freeze them. Or crush them...."

You know, I'm not certain because I don't have my DM guide right by my side, but I'm pretty sure that within the first few pages it says "These rules are just a guideline." So really if you had a problem with a particular rule you could modify them to suit your needs. Aside from that, DnD is more about the people you play with and less about the actual rules and all the other crap.

I would have just bowed out of this thread, but I wanted you to know that even if I don't agree, I did read your post.

Some of these (such as the "comic-book level powers") I see absolutely no problem with, and in fact consider a good thing (It would be mind-bogglingly dull if you were just an average Joe. Even the Serenity RPG, in which you are, technically, playing little more then an average Joe, it makes it so everyone has some above-average abilities). Others, such as the armor thing, is a way of making it some you don't have to have a gorram Bachelors Degree in math (or something similar) to play. DnD 3.5 and earlier is already extremely complicated. Why make it more complicated over what is, in all realty, little more then flavor text. If you don't hit someone's armor class, it's a miss. How or why doesn't really matter, mechanics wise, so they left it up to the players to add that kind of flavor themselves. Also...in 4e they some-what addressed that issue. And yes, 4e makes chars more super-hero-ish. And yes, I think that that's a good thing.

I honestly found, DMing and playing, that 3.0 and 3.5 weren't too complicated. Sure, some things in there are like wtf, but if you are using standard, as in 3 books, Monster Manual, DM's Guide and Players Guide, its pretty easy to follow, and even then we'd cut some things out like weight and such. Plus our DM for our school game was so great at explaining things to us as we learned about the game. I'm excited to have him DM again this year for us.

Logged

All of time and space, anywhere and everywhere, any star that ever was. Where do you want to start?

There is a difference between Average Joe and a skilled but not silly-powered individual, y'know. You can still be above average without 'comic book-level powers'.I've not played DnD so couldn't say what that's like, but... yeah.

There is a difference between Average Joe and a skilled but not silly-powered individual, y'know. You can still be above average without 'comic book-level powers'.I've not played DnD so couldn't say what that's like, but... yeah.

The whole idea of DnD adventuring groups is that they're above-average people. Folk with skills, training, and abilities most people don't have. IE - 'comic book-level powers'. Though really, with the exception of magic (which by its very nature will always be comic-book-ish), abilities and powers aren't that rediculus in 3.0 and 3.5. Vikings were infamous for their berzker rages that would allow them to deal far above average amounts of damage, and keep fighting even after taking injuries that would normally be fatal. Skilled archers can do even the more tricky shots used. I could go on, but don't really feel like it. And the more "wtf" abilities in 4.0 (like hitting someone with an axe, killing them, and gaining temp hp as a result) are easily explained by the fact that they rewrote everything so all classes and abilities use some from of magic. I will agree that if you (using the word generally) are out for pure realism, DnD isn't for you. But then, if you're looking for that, go join SCA or learn some martial arts, instead of playing a table top RPG.

Yay working on my own RPG system! Borrowing from the Cortex system, d20SRD, and 4e, with a fair chunk of mechanics of my own invention.